Search This Blog

Friday, January 31, 2014

Editorial: Closing Guantanamo - still

By Boston Herald editorial staffYesterday 0:00 AM

Ever since he ran for the presidency in 2008, Barack Obama has been promising to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. It has been part of the boilerplate of his State of the Union address just about every year since, this year was no exception.

"With the Afghan war ending, this needs to be the year Congress lifts the remaining restrictions on detainee transfers, and we close the prison at Guantanamo Bay."

The fact that a number of detainees released have returned to their previous occupation - waging jihad - seems not to bother the president.

This week the Pentagon allowed a group of reporters to watch (via closed circuit in a "secure room at the Defense Department") a 19-minute unclassified segment of one such "transfer" hearing. One of those reporters, Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal, noted that under the Bush administration reporters were actually allowed to attend hearings at Guantanamo.

But that's apparently too much for this administration, which is "transparent" in name only.

Some 155 detainees remain at the prison, 75 cleared for transfer, 20 charged with or awaiting trial for war crimes and the rest now going through hearings to determine if they can be repatriated.

The reporters were allowed to observe the hearing of Abdel Malik Ahmed Abdel Wahab al-Rahabi, a Yemeni who was among the first prisoners taken to Guantanamo about 12 years ago. His "detainee profile" says he "traveled from Yemen to Afghanistan for jihad and almost certainly was a member" of al-Qaeda, possibly a bodyguard for Osama bin Laden.

But now his U.S. lawyer insists Rahabi, who has taken classes in English, business and art and has acquired "a love of watercolors," wants only to return home to open "Yemen Milk and Honey Farms Limited."

Wow, from jihadi to art lover and entrepreneur, and Obama wants to close down a place that works such miracles? Or could it be that Rahabi might fall back on his previous occupation - in which case wouldn't we all be safer if he remained at Guantanamo?

Holder's terror surrender

By Boston Herald editorial staff2 weeks ago

Attorney General Eric Holder has reportedly decided to unilaterally disarm the Justice Department in the war on terror. Yes, in the interest of political correctness Holder will put this nation's law enforcement units in handcuffs.

Holder is reportedly considering expanding the definition of racial profiling in a way that would prohibit federal law enforcement agents of all kinds from considering religion and national origin in investigations - including, it would appear, in counterterrorism efforts and possibly surveillance.

If indeed he follows through on promises made to New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and reported in yesterday's New York Times, Holder should quite simply be impeached.

Now no one supports racial profiling in the conduct of ordinary policing. Nor do we support the harassment of our Muslim neighbors and friends. But to ignore the role of radical Islamists as a genuine security threat to this nation is nothing short of insane.

It is the kind of political correctness run amok that has led to grannies and toddlers being strip-searched at airports all the while the increasingly radicalized Tamerlan Tsarnaev was able to travel back and forth to a hotbed of Islamist terrorism like Dagestan unchecked and unmolested.

Linda Sarsour, advocacy director of the National Network for Arab American Communities, was practically giddy at the possibility of expanding the rules on profiling, telling the Times, "Adding religion and national origin is huge. But if they don't close the national security loophole, then it's really irrelevant."

"Loophole!"

Well, tell the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing about closing that "loophole" maybe while they try on their new prosthetic limbs.

And then explain the manifesto left behind in that boat by Dzhokhar Tsarnaev when police were closing in on him - the one that read, "When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims." Then ponder how Holder's move will make this nation safer.

TSA officers I talked to told me they felt the agency’s day-to-day operations represented an abuse of public trust and funds," Jason Edward Harrington writes, before detailing how TSA screeners routinely made jokes about passenger appearances, and even set up a system of code words such as "Alfalfa" to warn others when attractive female passengers were passing through $150,000 full-body scanners they all knew wouldn't stop a determined terrorist.

After reading his account, and others in his blog, Taking Sense Away, I came to one inescapable conclusion!

We have outsourced airline security to a bunch of teenagers.It's time to pull the plug and bring the adults back into control.

Also, before I forget: This abusive, intrusive, wasteful bureaucratic monstrosity is the product of a Republican Congress and a Republican president.

One of the most important qualities of true leaders is the ability to admit mistakes and take steps to fix them. Here's a great chance for the Republicans to show -- in an election year, no less -- why they're different from President Obama and the Democrats, who have doubled down on the Obamacare disaster, and why they deserve control in Washington.

Sessions: 'Rank-and-File' House GOP 'Last Line of Defense' Against Amnesty

on Thu, 30 Jan 2014

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, said on Thursday evening that House Republican members should stand up to House GOP leadership to oppose their immigration “principles.”

Sessions said the “principles” represent exactly what was contained in the previously-passed Senate “Gang of Eight” immigration bill.

“Once again, we have the same recycled talking points—crafted, it would appear, with the help of the same consultants and special interests,” Sessions said in a statement. “Each time, the talking points are followed by legislation that fails to match the promises—legislation that, at bottom, ensures only the amnesty and not the enforcement. The leadership talking points look like an attempted repackaging of the tired Gang-of-Eight-style formula that has been proposed, rejected, and re-proposed for years."

"It is no surprise then that Senator Schumer and former Speaker Pelosi are so encouraged by these developments," he continued. "But while Democrat leaders and interest groups appear satisfied, this document was not voted upon by the GOP conference and clearly does not represent the consensus of Republican members. Is it not time we pushed aside the stale proposals stitched together in concert with the same lobbyists, and asked what is in the best interests of the hardworking American citizen—and the nation?”

Specifically, Sessions laid out three manners in which the House GOP leadership’s plan reflect the Senate Gang of Eight bill: amnesty before securing the border and enforcing America’s interior immigration laws; a massive increase in legal immigration “that is reducing wages and increasing unemployment”; and an offer of “eventual citizenship” to illegal aliens inside America right now.

“Rank-and-file House Republicans are the last line of defense for working Americans,” Sessions said. “Now is the time for rank-and-file House Republicans to claim the leadership mantle and to say, firmly: our goal is to transition millions of struggling Americans from welfare and joblessness to work and rising wages."

"The president has not only dismantled enforcement but has delivered for a small group of special interests and CEOs by forcing through the Senate legislation that drastically surges the future flow of new immigrant workers competing against unemployed Americans," he stated. "There is a reason why these increases are never mentioned in the slick TV ads and radio spots: the American people reject them."

"Americans earning under $30,000 prefer a reduction to an increase in current record immigration levels by a 3-1 margin," Sessions explained. "Republicans have the chance to be the one party giving voice to the real-world concerns of the everyday worker whose wages have been flat or falling for more than 10 years.”

Sessions also called on House leadership to actually listen to federal immigration law enforcement officers asking Congress for help in enforcing laws.

“House leaders should support—not ignore—the immigration officers pleading for help,” Sessions said. “They should stand with—not against—unemployed American workers. And they should expose—not join—the president’s campaign to pass an immigration plan that will hollow out our shrinking middle class.”

The foundation of excellent medical care is the power to choose your doctor and, in partnership with that doctor, decide your course of treatment. With the Affordable Care Act, the government has inserted itself to become the final arbiter of your care. It will ultimately decide who becomes the health winners and losers.

Proponents of Obamacare want people to believe that the system is so broken that it can only be fixed through fundamental change. The disastrous rollout has certainly fed the push for a single-payer system, but an argument can be made that the government bailout written into the bill has actually already ushered in single-payer--since whoever controls the money also controls the access and makes the rules.

As the Obamacare train wreck continues to roll out, it will become painfully obvious to patients that although they have health insurance with no pre-existing conditions restrictions, free birth control, and preventative care, for several reasons they still may not be able to afford access to medical care when they need it: the out-of-pocket costs from their co-insurance and deductibles are so high; they will find that because they qualified for a subsidy, they will have that money clawed back the following year if their financial situation improves; and if they took the Medicaid option, they will be unable to leave any of their wealth to loved ones because the government will take it to recoup payments made for their health care.

Physicians will ultimately discover that they have no control of their talents. They will be considered providers of services that are rights that must be given--for whatever value the government deems fair. They will become interchangeable with the healthcare team, and with that innovation, individualized health care and the art of medicine will be gone forever.

But the antidote to what is ailing the American healthcare system is NOT more government intervention; it is more choice via free market medicine.

Health Care: A new survey shows that ObamaCare is less popular with the uninsured than with the public. How is this even possible?

The January Kaiser Family Foundation health tracking poll shows that just 24% of the uninsured approve of ObamaCare. That's down from 40% the month before the reform officially launched in October, and it's a full 10 points below the public's overall favorable rating.

Incredibly, more than twice as many uninsured say they're worse off because of ObamaCare than say it's helped. What's more, just 7% of the uninsured say they tried to get coverage through an ObamaCare exchange. Nearly 60% say they hadn't done anything to get coverage over the previous six months.

Given that Democrats claimed to have specifically tailored it to help the uninsured, these results make absolutely no sense.

Could it be that Democrats grossly misunderstood the population they were trying to help? Or had they'd been peddling lies about the uninsured population for so long — as a way to sell "universal health care" — that they'd come to believe their own propaganda?

It's more likely the latter of the two. Despite the endlessly repeated mantra about 40-plus million uninsured, data have shown for decades the actual ranks of the uninsured were much smaller, and the population less helpless, than Democrats routinely claimed.

As IBD reported, 42% of the uninsured are either non-citizens, eligible for Medicaid, or actually enrolled in Medicaid. Another big chunk earns more than $75,000 a year. And the vast majority of those who lose insurance get it back within a year, about half within months.

Plus, various surveys find that only a tiny fraction — just 5% in the Kaiser survey — say they don't have insurance because of poor health or age.

But admitting that the real uninsured problem is narrow would have undermined the Democrats' goal of "comprehensive" health reform. So they routinely withheld such facts — as did the mainstream press, which is equally as enthusiastic about nationalized health care.

These facts help explain the relative indifference among the uninsured to ObamaCare. So far, only about 11% of those who signed up have been uninsured, although nobody knows for how long. The vast majority were just trying to continue coverage they had before ObamaCare came along.

Why should the uninsured bother? Other than threatening a modest tax penalty, ObamaCare gives them little reason to buy coverage. In fact, it practically begs them not to.

Barack Obama: Patron Saint of the Press

During this week's State of the Union address, the President of the United States concluded his remarks telling the story of Sgt. 1st Class Cory Remsburg. Sgt. Remsburg, on his 10th tour in Afghanistan, nearly lost his life when a roadside bomb exploded.

Sgt. Remsburg suffered brain damage and paralysis on his left side, is now partially blind and has difficulty speaking. It was a touching ending to an otherwise shabby speech. More striking than President Obama's tribute was the press corps' reaction. NBC News Senior Political Editor Mark Murray declared on twitter that, "Obama's ending on Remsburg wasn't just a story about America -- it also was a story about Obama. Nothing has ever come easy."

Out of the Republican retreat on Maryland’s Eastern shore comes word that the House leadership is raising the white flag of surrender on immigration.

The GOP will agree to halt the deportation of 12 million illegal aliens and sign on to a blanket amnesty. It only asks that the 12 million not be put on a path to citizenship.

Sorry, but losers do not dictate terms. Rich Trumka of the AFL-CIO says amnesty is no longer enough. Illegal aliens must be put on a path to citizenship and given green cards to work – and join unions.

Rep. Paul Ryan and the Wall Street Journal are for throwing in the towel. Legalize them all and start them on the path to citizenship.

A full and final capitulation. Let’s get it over with.

To understand why and how the Republican Party lost Middle America, and faces demographic death, we need to go back to Bush I.

At the Cold War’s end, the GOP reached a fork in the road. The determination of Middle Americans to preserve the country they grew up in suddenly collided with the profit motive of Corporate America.

The Fortune 500 wanted to close factories in the USA and ship production abroad – where unions did not exist, regulations were light, taxes were low, and wages were a fraction of what they were here in America.

Corporate America was going global and wanted to be rid of its American workforce, the best paid on earth, and replace it with cheap foreign labor.

While manufacturing sought to move production abroad, hotels, motels, bars, restaurants, farms and construction companies that could not move abroad also wanted to replace their expensive American workers.

Thanks to the Republican Party, Corporate America got it all.

U.S. factories in the scores of thousands were shut down, shedding their American workers. Foreign-made goods poured in, filling U.S. stores and killing the manufacturers who had stayed behind, loyal to their U.S. workers.

The Reagan prosperity was exported to Asia and China by the Bush Republicans. And the Reagan Democrats reciprocated by deserting the Bush Republican Party and going home. But this was not the end of what this writer described in his 1998 book, “The Great Betrayal.”

As those hotels, motels, restaurants, bars, fast-food shops, car washes, groceries and other service industries also relished the rewards of cheap foreign labor, they got government assistance in replacing their American workers.

Since 1990, some 30 to 40 million immigrants, legal and illegal, have entered the country. This huge increase in the labor force, at the same time the U.S. was shipping factories abroad, brought massive downward pressure on wages. The real wages of Middle Americans have stagnated for decades.

What was wildly wonderful for Corporate America was hell on Middle America. But the Republican Party had made its choice. It had sold its soul to the multinationals. And as it went along with NAFTA, GATT, fast track and mass immigration, to appease Corporate America, it lost Middle America.

The party went with the folks who paid for their campaigns, only to lose the folks who had given them their landslides.

When Republicans accede to the demand for amnesty, and immigration without end, it does not take a political genius to see what is going to happen. For it is happening now.

Almost all of those breaking our laws, crossing the border and overstaying their visas are young, poor or working class. Between 80 and 90 percent are from Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.

They are Third World peoples. They believe in government action and government programs that provide their families with free education, health care, housing, food and income subsidies. They are not Bob Taft or Barry Goldwater conservatives.

Perhaps 85 percent of all immigrants, legal and illegal, more than a million a year now, are people of color. And while over 70 percent of Hispanics and Asians voted Democratic for Obama, among voters of African descent, the Obama vote was well above 90 percent.

Four of every five U.S. citizens of Asian, African and Hispanic descent vote Democratic in presidential elections. And it is their numbers that are growing. Already they are well over a third of the U.S. population.

As has been observed often, America, demographically, is going to look like California. And while Nixon won California all five times he was on a national ticket, and Reagan won California in landslides all four times he ran, California has not gone Republican in six straight presidential elections.

Democrats outnumber Republicans there by more than two-to-one in the congressional delegation and in the State Assembly, and not a single Republican holds statewide office.

If Bush I had built that border fence back in 1992 and declared a moratorium on legal immigration that fall, as many implored him to do, the party of the Bushes would not be facing its demise well before mid-century.

Thursday, January 30, 2014

The Commerce Department reported Thursday that GDP growth dropped to 3.2% in the 4th Quarter. While generally a healthy number, it is a dramatic drop from 3rd Quarter growth, which was 4.1% on an annualized basis.

For the entire year, GDP grew a modest 1.9% in 2013. This is slower than growth in 2012, which was 2.8% for the year.

The increase in the 4th Quarter was largely driven by higher consumer spending. Personal spending, in fact, accounted for more than half of the growth. This helped overcome a worrying drop in fixed investment. Another worry was the drop in personal savings rate, which dropped 14% from the 3rd Quarter to 4.3%.

Mike Lee: Secure the Border Before Dealing with Illegal Aliens in America

on Thu, 30 Jan 2014

Appearing on Fox News Thursday morning, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) said that he thinks House Republicans should insist that the border actually be secured before they even consider discussing anything to do with “legal status” or citizenship for illegal aliens in America.

“In order to reform our immigration code, and I agree that we need to reform it, we need to undertake this in a step-by-step fashion, and the very first thing we need to do is secure the border,” Lee said when asked for his reaction to the drama unfolding at the House GOP conference retreat. “And we also need to reform our antiquated, outdated visa system – our legal immigration processes."

"Once those things are done, once those things are in place and have been verified, then we’ll be in a better place to figure out how to treat the eleven million people who are here illegally with dignity and respect for the rule of law," he explained. "But these things can’t be wrapped together all at once. We need to undertake those first two steps first and complete them before we move on to the third.”

Lee’s point is that House Republicans should not pass a group of bills all at once dealing with all the parts of a comprehensive immigration reform solution, then label such a legislative package as “piecemeal” or “step-by-step.” Instead, Lee argues that real step-by-step or piecemeal immigration reform is when the House moves to secure the border and forces the Democrat-controlled Senate and President Barack Obama’s administration to pass and implement actual border security and interior enforcement measures.

What House GOP leadership is doing runs counter to that plan. According to the Wall Street Journal, they intend to introduce a plan that has all the “major planks” of the Senate’s 2013 “Gang of Eight” bill. Even though they will likely split it into a series of bills, leadership is expected to try to pass them all at the same time, meaning they will be implemented together – leaving open the almost certain likelihood that the Obama administration ignores the border security and interior enforcement parts of reform.

Obamacare favorability rating down a net 46 points since time of passage --- among uninsured | WashingtonExaminer.com

During his Tuesday State of the Union speech, President Obama touted the benefits of his health care law, but a new poll finds that the program is becoming increasingly unpopular among the uninsured -- the very group it was intended to benefit the most.

According to the January version of the monthly tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation, just 24 percent of uninsured adults under 65 have a favorable view of the health care law, while 47 percent, or nearly double, have an unfavorable view. In April 2010, the same survey taken weeks after Obama signed the health care legislation into law, 50 percent had a favorable view, compared to 27 percent had an unfavorable view. On a net basis, that's a 46-point drop in favorability.

Ratings of the health care law have tumbled since the botched rollout of the program's health exchanges last October, but in January, they took an especially substantial plunge among the uninsured (with favorability dropping 12 points). The magnitude of the drop could be chalked up to statistical quirk that may be corrected in next month's poll. On the other hand, it could be an indication that for many uninsured, the reality of the law is not living up to the promise.

Uninsured Americans who were expecting to get cheap coverage on the exchanges may have been surprised to learn that the plans being offered can be expensive, even after subsidies. And the cheaper plans come with high deductibles and fewer choices of doctors and hospitals. Additionally, those struggling to find affordable coverage will now be subject to a penalty if they don't purchase a plan by March 31.

Needless to say, if this trend proves to be more than statistical noise in one poll, it's incredibly problematic for Democrats. Their strategy for overcoming the backlash against the health care law is about going on offense by touting the benefits of the program to uninsured Americans. But if the uninsured are souring on the law to such an extreme degree, it will become a much tougher sell.

For more data on how the law has polled among various groups over time, check out the interactive Kaiser graph embedded in this post.

Obamacare favorability rating down a net 46 points since time of passage --- among uninsured | WashingtonExaminer.com

During his Tuesday State of the Union speech, President Obama touted the benefits of his health care law, but a new poll finds that the program is becoming increasingly unpopular among the uninsured -- the very group it was intended to benefit the most.

According to the January version of the monthly tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation, just 24 percent of uninsured adults under 65 have a favorable view of the health care law, while 47 percent, or nearly double, have an unfavorable view. In April 2010, the same survey taken weeks after Obama signed the health care legislation into law, 50 percent had a favorable view, compared to 27 percent had an unfavorable view. On a net basis, that's a 46-point drop in favorability.

Ratings of the health care law have tumbled since the botched rollout of the program's health exchanges last October, but in January, they took an especially substantial plunge among the uninsured (with favorability dropping 12 points). The magnitude of the drop could be chalked up to statistical quirk that may be corrected in next month's poll. On the other hand, it could be an indication that for many uninsured, the reality of the law is not living up to the promise.

Uninsured Americans who were expecting to get cheap coverage on the exchanges may have been surprised to learn that the plans being offered can be expensive, even after subsidies. And the cheaper plans come with high deductibles and fewer choices of doctors and hospitals. Additionally, those struggling to find affordable coverage will now be subject to a penalty if they don't purchase a plan by March 31.

Needless to say, if this trend proves to be more than statistical noise in one poll, it's incredibly problematic for Democrats. Their strategy for overcoming the backlash against the health care law is about going on offense by touting the benefits of the program to uninsured Americans. But if the uninsured are souring on the law to such an extreme degree, it will become a much tougher sell.

For more data on how the law has polled among various groups over time, check out the interactive Kaiser graph embedded in this post.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) thinks that the House GOP leadership’s renewed push this week to grant amnesty to illegal aliens would destroy the Republican Party’s chances at retaking the Senate in 2014.

Cruz questioned how establishment Republicans unilaterally caving to Democrats on everything from the farm bill to the budget to the debt ceiling and more could think amnesty is a good idea at this time.

"Right now, Republican leadership in both chambers is aggressively urging members to stand down on virtually every front: on the continuing resolution, on the budget, on the farm bill, on the debt ceiling,” Cruz said in a statement provided exclusively to Breitbart News on Thursday.

He continued:

They may or may not be right, but their argument is that we should focus exclusively on Obamacare and on jobs. In that context, why on earth would the House dive into immigration right now? It makes no sense, unless you're Harry Reid. Republicans are poised for an historic election this fall--a conservative tidal wave much like 2010. The biggest thing we could do to mess that up would be if the House passed an amnesty bill--or any bill perceived as an amnesty bill--that demoralized voters going into November. Rather than responding to the big-money lobbying on K Street, we need to make sure working-class Americans show up by the millions to reject Obamacare and vote out the Democrats. Amnesty will ensure they stay home.

Cruz added that granting amnesty now--while wrong in his opinion at any time--would ensure Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid remains in his position in after the 2014 elections.

"Amnesty is wrong in any circumstance, and if we are going to fix our broken immigration system--and we should--it makes much more sense to do so next year, so that we are negotiating a responsible solution with a Republican Senate majority rather than with Chuck Schumer,” Cruz said. “Anyone pushing an amnesty bill right now should go ahead and put a 'Harry Reid for Majority Leader' bumper sticker on their car, because that will be the likely effect if Republicans refuse to listen to the American people and foolishly change the subject from Obamacare to amnesty.”

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Political observers were stunned on Tuesday by the “happy talk” on President Obama that came from Senator Harry Reid. The majority leader actually said Senate Democrats should invite Obama into their states to campaign for them even if he is unpopular in them. “Barack Obama, he is a good person to campaign for anybody,” Reid enthused to CNN’s Dana Bash. That worked wonderfully well for Democrats in the last midterm election in 2010, when Obama helped Democrats lose six Senate seats and 63 House seats.

“Barack Obama is personally a very popular guy. And people love this man. They love his family,” Reid said. But there are limits to the love Democratic candidates have for him. Senators Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana both recently made themselves scarce when Obama held an event in their state. Even in Wisconsin, which Obama has twice carried, Democratic candidate for governor Mary Burke doesn’t want to campaign with the president when he arrives there on Thursday. Obama’s state approval rating is 44 percent, and just 35 percent of Badger State residents like Obamacare.

National Journal, a wonkish guide to Washington politics and policy, has afascinating article detailing just how hard it is for a party to hold a Senate majority when an unpopular president of the same party is in the White House. “Over the last decade, just nine Senate candidates have won elections with a president of their party below his national approval average in their state,” National Journal concluded. “That’s about one success in every ten races.”

On that score, the 2014 Senate playing field is potentially brutal for Democrats. Democrats are defending seats in five states — Arkansas, Alaska, Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia — where Obama’s approval rating was at or below 35 percent in 2013, according to Gallup. In four other states where Democrats hold a Senate seat that’s up in 2014, Obama’s approval rating was well below his national average of 46 percent: Louisiana (40 percent), Colorado and Iowa (42 percent), and North Carolina (43 percent). In Oregon, New Hampshire, and New Mexico the president had a 45 percent job-approval rating, just below his national average. That’s a whopping total of 11 Democratic seats that could potentially be in play this November.

Republicans also have seats they must defend, but far fewer of them. In Georgia, where the GOP must defend an open seat, Obama’s approval rating of 45 percent is below his national average. In Kentucky, where Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell is running for reelection, only 35 percent of voters have a favorable view of the president.

The power of the job-approval curse was demonstrated in 2010, when Democrats won only a single Senate seat in a state where Obama’s job approval was below the national average. That one exception was West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, the state’s governor, who went so far as to run at TV ad showing him firing a rifle through Obama’s cap-and-trade energy-tax bill.

Democrats insist that Obama’s approval ratings are picking up, but the latestRealClearPolitics average shows him stuck at 43.5 percent — below where he was in 2010. That may explain why Democratic senators Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana couldn’t wait to distance themselves from Obama last night.National Journal reported that “all released statements expressing disappointment with the president’s State of the Union — a sign that there’s not much he can do to help their reelections. Even Sen. Mark Udall (D), in battleground Colorado, repeatedly avoided whether he’d embrace the president’s help back home.”

Before and during the State of the Union message, President Obama declared that he intended to act by Executive Order to address issues like the economy. He did not mention, as we discussed in the last column, the much of what ails America’s middle class emanates from Washington in terms of deficits and public debt.

“The question for everyone in this chamber, running through every decision we make this year, is whether we are going to help or hinder this progress,” Mr. Obama told lawmakers as he reminded them of last year’s damaging government shutdown. Of course, the shutdown of the government was only damaging if you are a liberal Democrat. For most Republicans, shutting down the federal government was cause for joy. My friend Brian Wesbury of FT Advisors puts the heroic tendencies of American liberals in context:

Politicians want to believe the idea of the Keynesian multiplier because they really actually do believe they themselves are bigger than real life. As a result, politicians around the world have elevated Keynes to legendary status even though big government spending has left economic mayhem and poverty strewn everywhere. The latest use of the nutty Keynesian theory was when the US government was partially shut-down in October, 2013. Many argued that an impending shutdown would hurt economic growth in Q3 and then an actual shutdown would send the economy reeling in Q4.

Of course, the government shutdown had no appreciable effect on the US economy, but that does not stop liberals from threatening unilateral action to “help” working people. Republicans criticized the president’s focus on executive action as counterproductive, The New York Times reports. “Circumventing Congress won’t foster job creation and won’t result in economic growth,” said Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ).

But for Democrats, who must always be seen doing something in order to remain relevant politically, issuing edicts is the preferred rout going back to the authoritarian “New Deal” of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. President Obama stated:

[W]hat I offer tonight is a set of concrete, practical proposals to speed up growth, strengthen the middle class, and build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class. Some require congressional action, and I am eager to work with all of you. But America does not stand still — and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.

Actually, more than half of all Americans embrace limited government and would be happy to see President Obama remain motionless. But the hyper-frenetic Obama cannot sit still, one reason why his poll numbers are so bad. Obama is all about appearance, but with no substance, making him largely ineffectual but dangerous none the less. His compulsion to be seen “doing something” often results in bad decisions.

“Where Congress is debating things and hasn’t been able to pull the trigger on stuff, my administration is going to move forward,” Obama said on January 23 at the White House.

The Obama threats to issue Executive Orders if Congress does not act should reminds us of "Rule by Decree," common in corporatist systems like 1920s Europe and Brazil in the late 1980s, during the transition away from military rule after 1985. The president would sign a decree, and then congress would have 30 days to approve or override it. In the absence of override or any other action by Congress, the decree would become law. Obama’s government by Executive Order is not a far stretch from that scenario and reflects the desire of corporatists everywhere to abandon democratic processes in favor of a unitary, authoritarian and “more efficient” system of government.

Obama Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer reiterated that strategy in an e-mail released by the White House late last week. The president “has a pen and he has a phone, and he will use them to take executive action and enlist every American -- business owners and workers, mayors and state legislators, young people, veterans, and folks in communities from across the country -- in the project to restore opportunity for all,” Pfeiffer said.

These last remarks from Pfeiffer are part and parcel of FDR's National Recovery Administration (NRA), the ultimate corporatist program tried in the USA thus far. Are you "doing your part" the NRA posters asked? But we all need to remember that the corporatist model is anti-democratic, entirely European in derivation and antithetical to basic American values. The New Deal of FDR simply copied the government programs of fascist Europe in the 1920s and 1930s, particularly Mussolini in Italy, Uncle Joe Stalin in the Soviet Union and Adolph Hitler in Germany.

Barack Obama’s threat to government by Executive Order should be welcomed by conservatives since it gives us an opportunity to remind all Americans about the fascist roots of American liberalism. President Obama is not being "forced" to act by Executive Order, as an editorial by The New York Times today argues. He is doing so to try and inject some relevancy into his failed presidency.

Resorting to unilateral action by the White House just reveals the fascist roots of American liberalism (and, to be fair, some Republicans like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, who also resorted frequently to Executive Orders). When some politicians cannot prevail at the ballot box, then they embrace authoritarian models better suited to the fascist states of Europe, Asia and Latin America. Americans who love democracy and the rule of law should reject such alien and destructive models of governance and being anti-American.

Congressional Republicans are taking President Obama to court over his use of executive power to sidestep Congress.

The executive actions that Obama touted during the State of the Union speech are adding fresh urgency to the legal efforts of Republicans, who say he is using the authority of his office in unprecedented ways.

“We can go to court,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said. “We haven’t got many more options except [to] tell the American people that we’re seeing an abuse of the intent of the Constitution.”

Republicans have launched a salvo of legal actions to challenge the president on issues ranging from the implementation of the Affordable Care Act to the National Security Agency’s (NSA) surveillance programs.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Republicans would not sit idly by as Obama takes unilateral actions like raising the minimum wage for federal contractors to $10.10 an hour.

“We’re going to watch very closely, because there’s a Constitution that we all take an oath to, including him, and following the Constitution is the basis for House Republicans,” Boehner said.

Much of the GOP frustration centers on the healthcare law, which the administration has routinely delayed and changed during the implementation process.

GOP lawmakers argue the administration’s selective enforcement of the healthcare law amounts to an unconstitutional exercise of power. They point to the administration’s decisions to delay health insurance requirements, cap out-of-pocket costs and expand the employer mandate penalty.

They are also challenging the healthcare law’s contraception mandate, which the administration tweaked after an outcry from churches and religious organizations that oppose birth control.

“The First Amendment guarantees every American the right to free exercise of religion,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said.

“Yet, the Obama administration has chosen repeatedly to break the law by giving breaks to big business and Congress, while refusing to grant those same waivers to people with sincerely held religious beliefs,” he said.

Another amicus brief filed by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Rep. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) argues that the Department of Health and Human Services violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in its implementation of the contraception mandate. Eighty-eight lawmakers have signed it.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is planning a court offensive of his own, and plans to file a class action lawsuit against the NSA in the coming days.

He told the State of the Net conference Tuesday that the lawsuit is already written and predicted the Supreme Court would ultimately decide the challenge.

“I would like people on the Internet to go out and really support our lawsuit,” he said.

“Ten million people signed up for a lawsuit sends a message,” he added.

Meanwhile, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) has sued the Office of Personnel Management for allowing lawmakers and their staff to receive federal subsidies for their coverage under ObamaCare.

Johnson argues the decision violated Congress’s intent to subject lawmakers and their staffers to the same rules as the rest of the country.

“I’m just trying to enforce the law as it’s written,” he said. “We’re not able to address it with [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid [D-Nev.], who’s allowed votes on four Republican amendments since July.

“All you can really do is take it to court to raise the profile of the issue,” he said. “I’ve got a good legal team. This is no slam dunk but we believe we have legitimate rationale for establishing standing to highlight the lawlessness of the administration.”

Democrats argue Obama’s actions are well within the limits of the presidency and say Republican obstruction has left him with little choice but to act.

“He’s working with Congress. He has said, ‘Let’s pass the legislation that’s been introduced in the Senate and the House to pass the minimum wage.’ But should he have to wait because of the intransigents?” said Rep. Xavier Becerra (Calif.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

Republicans have bristled at Obama’s vow to use his pen and his phone to work around congressional opposition.

GOP leaders, however, have been slow to embrace legal action against Obama because of uncertainty about the ability to gain standing in court. They have also questioned whether it would be possible to fully litigate the suits before Obama leaves office.

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), the chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, has championed legal action.

“I think that’s the only choice we have, and that’s not just on ObamaCare, that’s on a host of different things,” he told The Hill in December.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Paul in December filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, which could limit the administration’s power to unilaterally restrict carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Some Republicans have accused their colleagues of grandstanding by taking their complaints to court.

“Sen. Johnson’s lawsuit is an unfortunate political stunt,” Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R) said of his home-state colleague’s suit earlier this month. “I am committed to repealing ObamaCare, but the employer contribution he’s attacking is nothing more than a standard benefit that most private and all federal employees receive — including the president.”

Boehner indicated the debate over suing the Obama administration could come up at the three-day GOP retreat on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, which begins on Wednesday.

“There are options that are available to us,” he said Tuesday.

McConnell declined to say whether he would support legal action to curb Obama’s use of executive power.

The biggest drawback to legal action, McCain said, is that it often takes years to wind through the courts.

“You know how long it takes,” he said. “The courts are very slow.”

He pointed to the legal challenge to Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in January 2012.

The Supreme Court is just now hearing a challenge to those recess appointments, which three federal appeals court ruled an unconstitutional action.

“Sometimes it takes two years … so you get near to the end of his administration,” McCain said.

Malik Obama is Barack Obama’s half-brother, but he is close enough to the president to have been the best man at Barack and Michelle’s wedding. He has also visited the White House, and is president of the Barack H. Obama Foundation.

It’s at the BHO Foundation website that Malik Obama has posted this curious photo.

The Barack H. Obama Foundation was fast-tracked to IRS tax-exempt status at the same time that the IRS was abusing numerous Tea Party and conservative groups. While those groups’ tax-exempt applications were taking two years and mountains of paperwork and invasive queries about their memberships and activities, the Barack H. Obama Foundation won its status in just 30 days. That status was back-dated 38 months, which is against the law.

The scarf is a Hamas scarf. Hamas is a designated terrorist group according to the US State Department. It has held that status since 1997.

The text on the scarf that the president’s brother is wearing in the 2010 photo reads, “‘Jerusalem is ours – WE ARE COMING!’” It also includes a map of Palestine that reads “From the river to the sea!”

In other words, Israel must be destroyed.

Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack have much more on the significance of the photo at Walid’s site.

Bryan Preston has been a leading conservative blogger and opinionator since founding his first blog in 2001. Bryan is a military veteran, worked for NASA, was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the Laura Ingraham Show and, most recently before joining PJM, was Communications Director of the Republican Party of Texas.

The United States is having a libertarian moment. And Rand Paul is getting ready to capture it by himself.

The Kentucky Republican delivered his own response to President Obama's State of the Union on Tuesday night via YouTube. But the rebuttal wasn't so much about what Obama said Tuesday as much as it was an opening salvo for a possible 2016 presidential campaign, the bulk of it coming as a directed argument against big government.

"Government doesn't create jobs very well," Paul said. "Government is inherently bad at picking winners and losers ... if government is to send money to certain people to create businesses, they will more often than not pick the wrong people, and no jobs will be created." He pointed specifically to the old big government bogeyman, Solyndra.

"It's not that government's inherently stupid, although it's a debatable point," Paul said. "It's that government doesn't get the same signals."

Paul's Tuesday speech wasn't sponsored by the GOP (that honor went to Cathy McMorris Rogers) or the tea party (that was Sen. Mike Lee's job). The personalized setup provided for a much more visually appealing delivery, complete with controlled lighting and a lectern. A year after giving the official tea-party response, Paul has struck out on his own.

The move makes sense. A TuesdayNBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that twice as many Americans feel negatively about the Republican Party than feel positively. As a politician, why tie yourself to that standard when you can use your own, already-mobilized base to go it alone, at least before primary season really kicks up?

And there's plenty reason to think Paul is perfectly placed to capture a slice of the current American agita. Consider this: What's the greatest, most existential threat to the United States—big business, big labor, or big government? In December, a record 72 percent said big government in a Gallup Poll, blowing past business (21 percent) and labor (5 percent). The majorities hold despite politics, but 92 percent of self-identified Republicans cite big government as the biggest threat to the future of America.

Think of Rand Paul as the anti-Bill de Blasio. In his Tuesday speech, Paul slammed the "politics of envy" and suggested that if you "punish" the successful, their companies will flee overseas. He pushed a somewhat anti-welfare message, highlighting the story of the antigay, fringey Star Parker, who says she once used her welfare money on drugs before turning her life around. While New Yorkers are highly optimistic about de Blasio just a few weeks into his liberal mayoralty, Paul's taking the bet that what flies in New York won't fly in the country overall. Again, there's a political logic here: While 67 percent of Democrats say government should do "a lot" to reduce poverty, only 27 percent of Republicans agree.

By all accounts, Paul is gunning for the top spot. In his Tuesday night response, Paul made policy proposals of his own, including those for economic freedom aones that would be set up around theU.S. and have, among other things, a flat 5 percent income and business tax. "I believe in an America where people are free to make their own decisions," he said.

And earlier in the day, he took digs at the possible competition. At Tuesday's State of the Net conference in D.C., Paul bashed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a "big proponent of the surveillance state," and suggested that a libertarian-leaning Republican candidate in 2016 could "completely transform where people think they are and what party people think they have allegiance for."

It's an early 2016 campaign shot, and it's not off base, either. Government was mentioned as the most important problem in the U.S. across all party IDs in a recent Gallup Poll, cited by 18 percent of Democrats. A whopping 65 percent of Americans say they're dissatisfied with the U.S. system of government and its effectiveness. However, many of the people who are upset over current government effectiveness are also surely no fans of the filibustering Paul.

Paul's speech was broadcast online instead of aired on national television, and it's not the sort of thing that's going to change the senator's fate on its own. But this independently run, radically small-government message is just another stake Paul is laying on a seemingly inevitable path toward a presidential campaign. Combine this with his impressive on-the-ground infrastructure and organization, and he's quickly becoming a major force for 2016.

People for the American Way, founded in 1981 by television producer Norman Lear, makes no secret that it is an advocate of a “wide variety of liberal causes.” The nonprofit’s 501 tax-exempt status has never been challenged by the Internal Revenue Service.

It’s a different story for Friends of Abe, a right-leaning Hollywood group whose membership includes actors Gary Sinise, Jon Voight and Kelsey Grammer. The nonprofit’s application for tax-exempt status has been “under review” by President Obama’s IRS for two years.

The Los Angeles Times reported last week that the federal tax authorities presented Friends of Abe (as in Abraham Lincoln) with a 10-point demand for detailed information about its meetings with various conservative political figures.

That follows a previous IRS demand that Friends of Abe give its enforcers enhanced access to its security-protected website, enabling the feds to identify the group’s members.

The agency’s demands on the Hollywood nonprofit raise renewed suspicion that the IRS continues to target conservative groups for extra scrutiny when they apply for tax-exempt status; continues to hold right-leaning groups like Friends of Abe to a different standard than unabashed liberal groups like People for the American Way.

Indeed, while the IRS asked Friends of Abe about various forums in which it hosted conservative speakers, it has not similarly questioned People for the American Way about events it hosted for liberal politicians like House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi.

And we highly doubt the IRS has demanded People for the American Way’s membership list, information not typically sought, according to tax experts consulted by the Times.

We suspect that Friends of Abe is the victim of a political double standard. But neither we, nor the American people, can know for sure because the IRS is supposedly prohibited from commenting on specific cases, as an agency spokesman said last week.

Well, the Friends of Abe case rises to the level that it warrants comment from IRS Commissioner John Koskinen or, at least, the chief of the tax-exempt and government entities division.

And since neither Mr. Koskinen nor any other IRS official will voluntarily address themselves to the targeting of Friends of Abe, we suggest a congressional inquiry by the House Oversight Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, who represents parts of south Orange County.

Senate Republicans Develop The Most Credible Plan Yet To 'Repeal And Replace' Obamacare

“Repealing and replacing” Obamacare with market-oriented reforms has been the Republican mantra for years now. If you’re a long-time follower of this space, you know that we’re skeptical that Obamacare will ever be repealed, GOP slogans to the contrary. Today, however, a trio of experienced Senate Republicans—Tom Coburn (Okla.), Richard Burr (N.C.), and Orrin Hatch (Utah)—have put forth the most thoughtful and constructive plan yet developed to repeal and replace Obamacare. The plan seeks to ensure that as many Americans have health coverage as Obamacare does. It’s a proposal grounded in the real-world tradeoffs that all serious reformers must make. Want to know how those tradeoffs might affect you? Read on.

Republicans have long been complacent about health reform

Republicans are united in their opposition to President Obama’s health law. But they are far from united as to what reforms they would seek in its stead.

Much of the Republican base—what some people call the Tea Party—would be just fine with repealing Obamacare and calling it a day. The vast majority of the Republican base is employed or retired; these active GOP primary voters are sometimes unaware of the degree to which their health coverage is heavily subsidized by the tax code (more than $300 billion a year, in the case of the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored coverage) or financed by the government (more than $750 billion a year in Medicare spending).